Sonia Williams v. Superintendent of Financial Services
FST File No.: M0340-2008
Date of Decision: July 9, 2009
Panel members: Ralph Scane, Paul Litner, Jeffrey Richardson
Parties to hearing: Sonia Williams
The Superintendent of Financial Services
Subject: Revocation of Mortgage Agent Licences
The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the mortgage agent licence of Sonia Williams (“Williams”) under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 (the “Act”).
The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to suspend the mortgage agent licence until Williams submits proof to the Superintendent that she has successfully completed an approved education program for mortgage agents within 120 days from the date of the order.
On June 20, 2008, Williams applied for a mortgage agent licence under the Act. The basis for the Superintendent’s proposed revocation was that she did not meet the required educational requirements and was not entitled the transitional exemption that she had claimed.
In her application, Williams had represented that she had been employed or authorized to deal in mortgages on behalf of a person registered under the Mortgage Brokers Act for at least 24 of the last 36 months and that the Superintendent had been notified under the Mortgage Brokers Act that she was so employed or authorized. On the basis of that representation, the Superintendent was satisfied that she met the exemption for education requirements for applicants previously employed and issued Williams a mortgage agent licence.
Ssubsequently, the Superintendent determined that the statement was not true and that Williams did not qualify for exemption from the educational requirements. A Notice of Proposal to revoke was issued on the grounds that Williams did not have the required educational qualifications and that she had made a false statement.
After hearing all the evidence and in particular the testimony of Williams, the Tribunal determined that she had believed her statement to be true and that while her work experience may not have not qualified she believed that it did when she applied. The Tribunal found that it could not conclude that Williams is unlikely to deal in mortgages with honestly and integrity. The decision notes that the proposed penalty of revocation was too severe. On the facts of this particular case, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate initial penalty was suspension until Williams has an opportunity to satisfy the educational requirement but that the opportunity could not be open ended. Accordingly, a time limit of 120 days, or such other extended time as the Superintendent might provide, was imposed. If Williams does not receive the required education qualifications in this time period, the Superintendent will revoke the licence.
Cases referred to:
Alves v. Superintendent of Financial Services (FST Decision No. M0315-2008-1)
This summary is offered as a public service and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Many factors unknown to us may affect the applicability of any statement or comment made in the summary to your particular circumstances.